Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

ok I gotta ask.... the NAU???

Posted on: July 7, 2007 - 8:39am

LunarShadow

Posts: 77

Joined: 2006-02-18

Offline

ok I gotta ask.... the NAU???

I know a few other memebers have seen the Zeitgeist movie by now.

There was something that was addressed in it that made me raise an eyebrow (as I am known to do). It was talking about what they reffered to as the NAU (the North American Union) between Mexico, Canada, and the US. now ummm I guess this raises a few questions.

1. Why would this go largely unreported by the media (with the exception of Lou Dobbs on CNN no one in the mainstream has covered this) you can find the segment on youtube Linky: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA

2. If said union happens what happens to the constitution and more important our civil rights?

3. Could something like this at all be a good thing?

4. What do any of you know about this and what are your additional thoughts on the matter?

1. The media is in the government's back pocket. Those in charge of CNN, Fox, NBC, etc are politically connected. A constant exchange of favors is taking place between them. The government doesn't want it reported, so the news outlets aren't reporting it.

2. The status of the Constitution will not change. It will still be an invalid document nobody cares about which is kept around for purposes of maintaining a pretense of legitimacy and being the same government that has always been there, even though it's not. If the countries merge, they won't merge. Patriotic and nationalistic americans would see a NAU government as foreign, distrustworthy, and be highly skeptical of anything it did. Anti-NAU stuff would be all over. The NAU is de-facto, not de-jure. Putting it into law isn't creating a NAU, it's just cementing it.

The status of civil rights will also not change. They will still be a purely rhetorical government tool to justify it's civil-rights voliating policies.

3. It could be a good thing if it eventually leads to people being totally distrustful of any government, but that's a very long shot, partially because nobody will be dealing with the NAU, they'll be dealing with Canada, the United States, and Mexico, at least in name, nobody will realize anything has changed.

4. I know that evil means to evil ends will not create any good in the world. The NAU is neither legitimate nor created in any legitimate way, even if we assume the legitimacy of the governments entering into them, which I don't believe can be rightly assumed.

For those who have not seen it, here's a link to it on google video. I'm not sure if this had been thouroghly discussed before, I just remember seeing the first part about religion here.

The first part deals with religion, namely Christianity. It basically describes the foundations of being astrological in nature. The second part deals with the 9/11 conspiracy, and how the government actually had a hand in the attacks. The last part is about the federal reserve banks, and how it's a neverending spiral of enslavement and debt for the American people.

The first part I agree with. I already knew there were a lot of other characters like Jesus in mythology, with the virgin birth, resurrection, etc. This however, like I said, actually attempts to explain why all these cultures chose these things. I already knew that religions were made up, but I didn't know from where. If that is true, it would definately make a lot of sense.

The next part I'm a little iffy with. I usually laughed at the 9/11 conspiracy nuts, but this movie seems to explain it more logically. I tend to take the simplest solution, because it seems way too evil for our president and government to kill 3000 of our own citizens in cold blood. I have not looked into this much, but from the movie there are a lot of strange facts. They meantioned other sky scrapers that were set on fire, much worse than the WTC, and they didn't collapse. They also go into more details on how it looked like a controlled demolition. This is the part that I have the hardest time believing. I used to be a big conspiracy nut myself, but if these facts are indeed true... I'm not sure what to think.

The last part is a little hard to believe too. It also claims that the government purposely caused the great depression, as well as the causes for us to go to war in WWI and WWII. I'm not much into economics and such, so I'm not sure if I understand a lot on what they're talking about. However it does make me think too. I think that's the entire point of the movie.

I haven't seen the movie, but the U.S. (or any other country, for that matter!) prodding a bit to get a war started is not unheard of at all. It's probably the norm for the last century or so, actually.

Vietnam was unquestionably provoked. Korea was provoked. There's some question still, but I believe in 50 years, it will be common knowledge that Saudi Arabian terrorists were provoked (What??! It wasn't Iraq behind 9/11??) The Panama Canal was built and obtained through provocation. There's lots of anecdotal evidence that the U.S. might have been searching for an easy in to WWII. I doubt that they knew Pearl Harbor was going to happen, specifically, but it stands to reason that they were waiting for an attack on U.S. interests. The Allies were in real trouble, and the most powerful forces in the U.S. (bankers, primarily) realized the danger inherent in an unstable Europe.

In any case, I tend to do a 60/40 split on most theories like this. Do I think that the U.S. government is as bad as the conspiracy buffs say? No. Do I think it's completely innocent of the accusations? No. I suspect credit, etc... was invented out of basically good intention, and then crafty politicians later realized its value for distracting and encapsulating the populace.

Anyway... enough pontification. I'm going to get some lunch.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

Our government is not transparent and the 'war on Iraq' seems devised and sustainable for profit.

Profit? WTF!? We're not making money over there...we're wasting millions. The unfortunate thing is that we can't just blow Iraq to nothing...there are innocent civilians living there, otherwise this whole damn thing would be over with.

Quote:

If we can send men to the moon, replicate life, map the human genome, how cannot we not catch terrorists?

Because they're not the same thing. There aren't people with power and weapons keeping us from making scientific advances. And we don't have enough manpower to find him. In order to do that, we have to rely on people who live in the areas of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. The terrorists have a subtle but real threat against these people: fear. So they won't cooperate with us, making it infinitely harder to find the needle in the mile-high haystack.

Profit? WTF!? We're not making money over there...we're wasting millions. The unfortunate thing is that we can't just blow Iraq to nothing...there are innocent civilians living there, otherwise this whole damn thing would be over with.

Could you define "we" please? I'm certainly not making any money off of Iraq, but then I don't own an energy company, or have a long history of war profiteering. Someone whose family might be notorious as war profiteers (cough, cough, Bush, cough, cough, Walker, cough) might actually be doing better.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

Could you define "we" please? I'm certainly not making any money off of Iraq, but then I don't own an energy company, or have a long history of war profiteering. Someone whose family might be notorious as war profiteers (cough, cough, Bush, cough, cough, Walker, cough) might actually be doing better.

"We" means America in general. Maybe if you're making guns for the military you're making money, but other than selling supplies for fighting, I don't really see how one would make a profit off of a war. Unless, of course, you're winning and taking the spoils of victory.

Yea, I've seen it too. Really interesting, thought provoking. I'm skeptical of all of it... as any free-thinking person ought to be skeptical of anything, I suppose. Part I sure as hell wouldn't surprise me, though, even still if I've yet to confirm much of it myself through googling the various facts mentioned therein. I believe Rook here at the RRS, one of the founding members I'm guessing (though I'm not sure of that), probably knows a lot about the history of religion, and could confirm much of it. But Part I does make much sense, especially in light of what I've come across in the past year or two, about the history of religion, religious syncretism due to the control of empires, the concept of memes, etc...

Hey all, I've lurked around here for a while but this is the first time I've posted.

I'm not sure if this has been posted before since I couldn't find a search function for the forums, but if anyone hasn't seen the movie Zeitgeist you need to go to www.zeitgeistmovie.com and watch it. It totally destroys jesus and pretty much the idea of all religions just in the first of 3 parts. It also talks about some interesting things about how horrible the U.S. government is.

It's not going to happen. If at all it did, something similar to the European Union would be the result.

What would indeed happen to America's constitution? *Certainly it wouldn't be improved. What indeed would happen to American's civil rights? *Certainly they wouldn't be improved either.

Could anything like this be a good thing? I can't think of a way to elaborate on NO!

I'm disturbed. If the United States turns greedy eyes on more than just the natural resources of Canada (yes, I'm bitter about softwood lumber, agriculture, beef and a number of other things), the culture and corporations and determinedly attempts to enter into some kind of... wait! There must be some part of sovereign that I don't comprehend, or this just won't ever happen barring an armed takeover of Canada (which I don't propose is entirely unlikely). Canadians, are wary (to be light) of the United States and its interests. It is not likely that in any referendum the required Canadians would vote in favour of a unified North America in any sense, perhaps not even in a unified economy. Canada's harsh contrast with the United States is a good reason for the two countries to never became more than tolerant, even cordial, neighbours. As for Mexico... I would prefer to visit Cuba and am in the position to have such a preference . I would be concerned about how the vastly different policies and societies of Canada and the United States would mesh in a union of any sort. They hardly mesh within NATO.

*Read as dripping with sarcasm.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."

I watched the movie and I really enjoyed it. I'm skeptical, of course, since the chilling graphics and spooky music just reek of a run-of-the-mill conspiracy theory.

Who made this movie? I'd like to know more about the people behind its production, if anyone happens to know. Obviously I want to know what kind of people they are, but I also want to know in case they die myserious deaths soon.

I don't know enough about economics or government to really make a good assessment of the movie, but according to the movie, that's part of the problem!

Even if it's a bad conspiracy theory, I can't resist them. They're neat.

I keep doing Google searches to find websites and forums that have attempted to debunk this movie, and there are many out there who make the attempt.

Strangely... most of them focus almost completely on the first part of the video that attacks Christianity, and many of these debunkers say they are christians in their "debunks". Whether or not the movie actually did get information about Jesus or any other religion wrong, I find the content of most of these debunk attempts to be interesting.

Has anyone else noticed this? Are there any quality attempts at debunkery available, or is it just angry christians so far?

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.

I'm not happy with the movie at all. The first half is purely speculative in nature, and worse it uses scholarship that is grossly out of date. (Kersey Graves much?!) The idea that the religions of that period were based on the stars is about as realistic as herbal medication curing diseases. This is the sort of research that makes me cringe, and I don't recommend it at all. There was more to Christianities origins than simply astrological signs - and I say that with a pillar of salt, because tehre really wasn't anything about the origins of Christianity dealing with that.

Further the claims about other deities is downright troubling. (This may come from my historian side, and how comparisons are made too easily, and those comparisons are generally false.) There may be some deities in history that Jesus might have been based off of, but really Jesus is midrash and Homeric in nature, and nothing more. One might say there is a dash of egyptian influence, but that is only because David, Solomon and Moses had egyptian influence. And even that was very little. If anything, the character of Jesus is a reinterpretation of the Old Testament and additional Jewish pseudepigrapha.

The second part of the movie I'm not too happy with either, but I tend to keep my nose clean of these issues (concerning 9/11) because I don't know enough about it to make a judgement, and my time is too limited to do much research.

I was born & grew up in Zimbabwe and have lived in the UK for the last 8 years, so may be able to offer a viewpoint on the European Union and the African Union not otherwise obvious.

The current EU is still predominatley an economic beast, but it inches ever closer towards its eventual goal of unifying Europe as a federal state. That eventuality is still some way off - the last attempt at replacing the Maastricht Treaty with a constitution failed miserably, and there is still considerable resistance here in the UK to joining the Euro. It might be compared to the Germanic states between 1851 & 1871. Lots of bickering, but everyone still has the same general goals in mind. Happily, there is no Bismarck to try and force unification through war against a common enemy. Yet.

The AU is more or less a current and aspiring dictators' club. I don't know how else to describe a group of leaders who give Robert Mugabe a standing ovation as he enters the room. Fucking arseholes does spring to mind, but doesn't quite cover it. It was born of the Organisation of African Unity which was set up by idealists specifically with the ideal of "Pan-Africanism" in mind. Most of those idealists are now dead, having lost their lives and their characters to very clever assassinations. Accusations of homosexuality or corruption coupled with dodgy brake lines were the preferred method in Zimbabwe until recently. There are still a number of wars going on in Africa. Wars that appear to be internal conflicts, but are really horrendous multi-national conflagrations. The war in the Democratic Republic of Congo involved the DRC, Namibia, Angola, Zimbabwe, Uganda and Rwanda. Estimated death toll - 2 million. The ceasefire and apparent peace accord only quietened the fighting down a little. It's not over yet. Africa is a long way off unity in any way, shape or form.

All I know about the potential NAU is what's in this movie, but imagine it would have its roots in NAFTA.

As a side note, the search function is only available to subscribers. You can subscribe on your account page if you wish.

Why is that? It's not that hard to search the site. Just search google (or probably any other search engine) with site:www.rationalresponders.com/forums atheist, here "atheist" is the search term. This works with any website. If you don't want to have to type in all that, I created a custom Google search engine to search the forums: http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=004672168515380517797%3Ahszaxgrqzma

Are you really sure you believe everything this movie tells you? How much have you looked into it? Do you believe it because you have reason to believe it, or do you believe it because you want to believe it?

When you already believe someone is a scoundrel, it doesn't take much for you to feel like your suspicions have been confirmed. Try thinking about it more skeptically, if you can.

Would the movie have had the same effect on you if it simply would have been a list of facts, leaving out all of the images and dramatic music?

I can't say that the film is false, but I can't say that the film is true either. Many have already said (atheist and theist alike) that his (their?) debunking of Christianity is somewhat perfunctory and sloppy. And I've seen several sites complain about the credability of his sources.

I won't deny that the film draws some interesting lines, but that's what conspiracy theorists do best. They can even do it when no such lines realistically exist.

I definitely feel like there is something fishy about 9/11. And I definitely feel like there is something fishy about Bush.

But a feeling is not evidence, and I find it hard to believe that a lone researcher/film maker could piece together facts in ways that professionals couldn't.

It was a very thought-provoking film, but it's probably best to exercise some restraint. The film is very likely not 100% factual, if factual at all.

I do love conspiracy theories though, so I was dreadfully entertained. I had popcorn and everything!

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.

First off, I should've used the search function (and I yell at pople for not using it ).

Secondly, I don't believe everything that this movie tells me. I have inductive reasoning (no I'm kidding). I do believe it about 9/11, because I've done much research and cross-referenced much of what this movie claims about 9/11, and I've come to the conclusion that it was done by our own government for reasons explained in the movie, among others.

Zeitgeist is a remarkable film, to say the least. It exposes Christianity for the thieving religion that it is, but more importantly, addresses an issue that affects each and every person--world domination. I know that sounds kooky, but I'm not kidding. Conspiracy theories aren't just theories--they're fact. Please download, discuss, and distribute this movie. This is serious and mustn't be overlooked.

I saw parts of Zeitgeist on YouTube. The part about Christianity being a metaphor for sun worship seemed interesting. Then it made a sharp turn into 9-11 conspiracy theory. I think that's the point where you go "Oh... This has no credibility."

Because everyone knows that Bigfoot and Count Chocula hijacked a spaceship from Roswell, went back in time, and shot JFK. Then, to hide the evidence, they filled the aforementioned spaceship with explosives and shot that fucker into the World Trade Center. However, they only did this after the Masons said bowling was cancelled for Thursday.

Seriously, that's the level of credibility this movie has now. While the religious thing made a certain level of sense, when placed right next to the 9-11 shit and without any ACTUAL proof, that falls apart, too. If anything in this movie is true, it looks bad by comparison because it is in with material that just doesn't make sense.